Allowed

Dinesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2023ABAIL/12629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant sought bail in a property dispute case alleging false implication. The High Court granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond with two sureties, imposing standard conditions based on the Sushila Aggarwal judgment, and disposed of the application without expressing an independent opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial; ordered release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of similar amount, subject to specified conditions.

Dinesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12629 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.401 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station South, District Firozabad.

¶8

In short, the prosecution story is that the complainant is stated to have purchased the land from the co-accused through a registered sale deed and prior to purchase the said property, the applicant is stated to have purchased the said property from Charan Devi and Shashi Devi.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place. The applicant is aged about 50 years and suffering from several old disease and he has no concern with the alleged incident. He further submits that initially a sale deed was executed by Shyam Singh in favour of Charan Devi and Shashi Devi in which the applicant was a witness. In order to harass the applicant, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed, which was treated as complaint case and vide order dated 03.11.2022, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant. He further submits that the impugned complaint is a counterblast to the FIR No.189 of 2018 which was lodged by co-accused Virendra Singh against the complainant and other co-accused persons. He further submits that the applicant is having previous criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed today. The applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the

¶10

liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Dinesh Chandra, involved in the aforesaid aforesaid complaint case be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his

¶20

bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.12.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moti Lal Shiv Hare Vs State of U.P.

Tanzeem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Tajuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Man Singh Yadav @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.